jury. There, unlike here, the attorney properly appeared to testify and then asserted a claim of privilege in response to particular questions. The Seventh Circuit found that the following questions did not call for privileged communications: (1) Whom did you direct [in the search of documents responsive to the

jury. There, unlike here, the attorney properly appeared to testify and then asserted a claim of privilege in response to particular questions. The Seventh Circuit found that the following questions did not call for privileged communications: (1) Whom did you direct [in the search of documents responsive to the

4C rAA 0010V41JOI VaAv tiff, IL, 832 F.2d 554 832 F.2d 554, 24 Fed. R. Evid. Sm. 275 (Cite as: 832 F.2d 554) H United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. In re GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS—Subpoena to State Attorney's Office. Thomas H. Greene, Dawson A. McQuaig, Jake Godbold, Don McClure, Intervenors- A

s. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00592422 H3ulgiva 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The Seventh Circuit case cited by defendant can be distinguished because in that case someone was trying to show that he wasn't a criminal and that he was a victim ins

strict of Columbia, and is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Seventh Circuit, Ninth Circuit, District of Columbia Circuit, and Federal Circuit, and the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. EFTA00728148

ittee ultimately found that the professor had "used his position and influence as a teacher to exploit students for his private advantage." Id. The Seventh Circuit held that "the reasons for his termination were adequate...and 5 We have excluded very old, outdated cases in which the alleged "immorality" or "mor

ative or corrective opportunities if provided. 5 EFTA00799968 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 421 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2017 Page 6 of 11 Seventh Circuit observed, "[h]ow the United States reaches its litigating positions, who said what to whom within the prosecutor's office, and so on, are for the At

omson Reuters, West and their affiliates. EFTA00598999 wgithw Page I 627 F.3d 622 (Cite as: 627 F.3d 622) C United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald J. McGUIRE, Defendant-Appellant. No. 09-1597. Argued Nov. 9, 2010. Decided Dec. 2, 201

ative or corrective opportunities if provided. 5 EFTA00601686 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 421 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2017 Page 6 of 11 Seventh Circuit observed, "[h]ow the United States reaches its litigating positions, who said what to whom within the prosecutor's office, and so on, are for the At

9 Page 9 of 27 Westiaw. 495 F.3d 536 495 F.3d 536 (Cite as: 495 F.3d 536) U.S. II. Johnson C.A.7 (Ind.),2007. United States Court of Appeals,Seventh Circuit. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, V. Charles M. JOHNSON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. No. 06-3968. Argued April 10, 2007. Decided Jul

2001) (information regarding the receipt of attorney's fees is not protected). In Matter of Grand Jury Proceeding, 68 F.3d 193 (7th Cir. 1995), the Seventh Circuit discussed specific questions asked of an attorney during his testimony before the grand jury. There, unlike here, the attorney properly appeared to

of Identified Victims, not identified witness. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00794473 (212) 805-0300 EFTA00794474 55 H3ulgiva 1 The Seventh Circuit case cited by defendant can be 2 distinguished because in that case someone was trying to show 3 that he wasn't a criminal and that he was a vict